Excerpts from William Morgan's message of Mon Aug 24 20:13:43 +0200 2009: > Reformatted excerpts from Carl Worth's message of 2009-08-19: > > I've attached a patch that at least makes the crashes I was able ro > > reproduce go away. > > Applied, thanks! > > > [*] Totally off-topic: This is one of the things about "dynamically > > typed" languages that I've never been able to wrap my brain around. I > > really like that with static typing I can trust the compiler to help > > me be very thorough if I make a type change like this, (and catch all > > the cases before shipping any code). Instead, here, there's a hard > > task of exercising every possible code path (at run time) before we > > know if there are any type errors still lingering. I've seen some > > proponents of dynamically-typed languages argue that unit testing > > should provide the same coverage that a statically-typed compiler > > would, but I haven't seen that in practice.
[...] > I do believe that if I were using a statically-typed > language, development would be significantly slower, and Sup would be > nowhere near the point it is now. I have no proof of this statement, of > course. I don't really want to start troll on this subject... However it depends on what kind of statically-typed language to talk about, if you mean Java or C++ then I agree with you, the development would be much sloooower. Although if we take a language like Haskell (or OCaml, or Scala...) the development become really competitive. Best regards, -- Nicolas Pouillard http://nicolaspouillard.fr _______________________________________________ sup-talk mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/sup-talk
